Safiya Malik

The Gujarat High Court, on January 10, 2025, issued a judgment directing the strict enforcement of a ban on hazardous kite-flying materials. These materials include Chinese lanterns, nylon threads (commonly referred to as Chinese manjha), and glass-coated threads, irrespective of whether they are synthetic or cotton. The court directed state authorities to ensure strict compliance with the ban ahead of the Uttarayan festival.

The case was filed as a public interest litigation (PIL) by Siddharajsinh Mahavirsinh Chudasama and another petitioner, raising concerns about the continued circulation of harmful kite-flying materials despite prior judicial orders. The petitioners argued that these materials posed severe risks, including fatal injuries to humans and animals, particularly birds, during the Uttarayan festival. They referred to an earlier judgment from January 13, 2017, which explicitly directed state authorities to take preventive measures against the use of such materials.

Representing the petitioners, advocates MM Beg and Bhunesh C. Rupera contended that the materials in question included nylon threads, glass-coated synthetic threads, and cotton threads coated with harmful substances. They cited Section 144 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), which allows authorities to issue prohibitory orders in matters of public safety. The petitioners submitted that a lack of effective enforcement and public awareness had contributed to the continued use of these materials, leading to significant risks to both human life and the environment.

The private respondents, represented by advocate Harshesh Kakkad, included traders and manufacturers engaged in the sale of kite-flying materials. They challenged the government resolution, arguing that the ban was overly broad and should not include glass-coated cotton threads. They contended that the National Green Tribunal (NGT) had not explicitly banned these materials and requested the court to exclude them from the prohibition. The respondents submitted that their livelihoods were adversely affected by the blanket ban and sought modifications to the government’s directive to provide clarity and relief.

The State of Gujarat, represented by Advocate General GH Virk, defended the government resolution, asserting that it comprehensively prohibited all synthetic threads, nylon threads, and glass-coated materials, irrespective of their base material. The state submitted that the resolution aimed to address public safety concerns and prevent harm caused by these materials. To demonstrate its enforcement efforts, the state presented evidence of raids conducted between January 1 and January 8, 2025. These operations resulted in the closure of 34 manufacturing units and the apprehension of individuals involved in producing and distributing the prohibited items.

The Division Bench, comprising Chief Justice Sunita Agarwal and Justice Pranav Trivedi, reviewed the submissions and upheld the validity of the government resolution. The court observed that the resolution applied to all types of threads coated with glass or harmful substances, regardless of whether they were synthetic or cotton. It stated: "The government resolution does not make any classification between synthetic and cotton threads; all types of threads coated with glass and other harmful substances have been prohibited."

The court rejected the respondents’ claim that glass-coated cotton threads should be exempted from the ban. It recorded: "Threads coated with glass, regardless of their base material, pose severe threats to public safety and are dangerous to human beings and birds." The court dismissed the respondents’ arguments as “wholly misconceived,” noting that the prohibition was unambiguous and aimed at addressing the risks associated with these materials.

The court also addressed deficiencies in the state’s public awareness efforts, observing that advertisements and public notifications regarding the ban were incomplete. It stated: "The advertisement notifying the ban does not give a complete picture, as it only refers to ‘Chinese dori.’ Necessary corrections must be made forthwith to include all prohibited substances as indicated in the government resolution." The court directed the state authorities to revise and expand their public awareness campaigns to ensure that the public is fully informed about the prohibition.

While acknowledging the state’s enforcement efforts, the court stated that further actions were required, particularly targeting manufacturers. It observed: "Though some improvement could be shown in the implementation of the ban, effective steps still have to be undertaken. The main culprits are the manufacturers, and if they are let free, only nabbing the seller or purchaser would not be helpful."

The court issued specific directives to ensure the effective implementation of the ban. State authorities were instructed to enforce the prohibition comprehensively, adhering to the government resolution without exceptions. Public awareness campaigns were to be revised to clearly list all prohibited materials and disseminated through both print and electronic media. Authorities were directed to prioritize action against manufacturers and to conduct continuous raids and inspections to ensure compliance. A dedicated task force was instructed to oversee these enforcement measures, particularly in the days leading up to the Uttarayan festival. The court ordered the state to submit an affidavit by January 13, 2025, detailing the actions taken to implement the ban.

Case Title: Siddharajsinh Mahavirsinh Chudasama & Anr. v. State of Gujarat & Ors.
Case Number: R/Writ Petition (PIL) No. 253 of 2016
Bench: Chief Justice Sunita Agarwal and Justice Pranav Trivedi

[View/Download order]